Friday, May 15, 2015

St. Petersburg bishop dismantles Summorum Pontificum in his diocese

Last month members of the Latin Mass community of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida were stunned to receive a letter addressed to them by their local ordinary, Bishop Robert Lynch. Following years of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass being offered at two different diocesan parishes, the faithful of both St. Anthony of Padua in San Antonio and Incarnation Catholic Church in Tampa learned that they would be losing the traditional Mass. Instead of further realizing Pope Benedict’s vision of both forms of the Roman Rite mutually enriching each other through greater availability, Bishop Lynch has instead chosen the path of displacement and containment.

The bishop’s letter is often antagonistic in its tone, surprisingly so at times, and this despite the fact that we should no longer be surprised by such overt hostility toward this group of faithful.

He also said "the train has left the station" (or something like that) on upholding non-contraception among the faithful, so, yeah, this Florida bishop is to the Church what Florida Man is to humanity: a reliable embarrassment.

The issue is still extra ecclesiam nulla salus.EENS is linked to the Feeneyite version of the dogma which is traditional.Recently even Church Militant TV presented ambiguity on Mic'd Up : Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Christine Niles and Fr.Roman Manchester were drawn into liberal theology arguments relative to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They could have said, "We don't know of any exceptions to the dogma.We cannot know of any one today saved without faith and baptism.""We cannot know of any one saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire" they should have said.Case closed!They needed to avoid entering into the liberal theology cycle.The new theology is an endless circle.It is based on an irrationality.Stay clear of the new theology since it is based on a factual error. Do not link invincible ignorance etc with the dogma EENS.They made the link with the dogma. So they implied there are known exceptions in the present times. These cases would be apparitions!They should have simply said that there are no known cases today of someone being saved in in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.They could have said that we don't know of any one who is there today in Heaven without the baptism of water.They are invisible.They cannot meet someone on the streets of Detroit saved in invincible ignroance and the baptism of desire. Say the obvious!They could not know of someone saved without 'faith and baptism' i.e outside the Church.So there are no known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of EENS .There cannot be any exceptions.So there is nothng in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS.When someone says Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma he is drawing on liberal theology, Apparition Theology.He is implying that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known apparitions in the present times.So they contradict EENS.Mic'd Up had a segment titled 'The Theology of EENS' .They could have added the phrase, 'Beware of it!'Or they could have added the phrase 'Avoid it! It's irrational'.Or, 'Traditional ecclesiolocentric ecclesiology of EENS is rational'.from Lionel Andrades@AndradesLionel on Twitter

Bishop Lynch was a publicly known sodomite and yet he was allowed to retain his office to do what it is in the nature of sodomites to do - subvert anything and everything existing that opposes their vice.

There is an old joke - scratch a liberal liturgist, reveal a sodomite.

It was not for nothing that Dr. E. Michael Jones asked if the post Vatican Two liturgical revolution was just the modern expression of sodomy (paraphrase)